AVweb Video on Vashon Ranger + Aviation Consumer Article

[MrMorden]

Regarding flying over gross: I think it *is* common. I know many, many pilots that talk about flying over gross with a shrug, or when I tell them I can't take that weight of people/gear/fuel will just say "just fly it over gross", and not in a joking way.

I think I might have been over gross a time or two when flying two people on long cross country flights, but not intentionally and not by much. I try to account for everything in the airplane, but there is always a possibility the "5lb of tools and spares" in my airplane is actually 7lb. I have told people on several occasions that they cannot take a bag weighing more than X pounds. Luckily my wife is a light packer. Also luckily, my airplane has a very generous useful load of 575lb. I imagine it's a lot harder or more frustrating to stay legal when your useful load is 480lb, you weigh 200lb, and you want to actually get some utility from your airplane.

Like most things where you shave the margins down, it's not a problem until it is.

[drseti]

You might be able to build and sell a basic airplane with basic instrumentation for $80k.

Of course you could. AeroTrek does that with the old Avid Flyer design.

[MrMorden]

You might be able to build and sell a basic airplane with basic instrumentation for $80k.

Of course you could. AeroTrek does that with the old Avid Flyer design.

Agreed, the bitter pill to swallow on the Aerotrek is buying an $80k Avid that you could buy used for $25k-30k all day long on Barnstormers. But of course those are E-AB airplanes and not everybody's cup of tea. BTW one of my good buddies flies an Avid, it's a pretty great airplane, even with a 65hp Rotax two-stroke engine. The killer setup would be a 80hp Rotax upgraded to a 115hp Zipper Big Bore. Airplanes with that setup make Supercubs look pretty weak.

[Warmi]

My understanding is that Aerotrek , while originally based on Avid is a completely different plane , with different manufacturing process, materials etc ... you are definitely not just buying a rebranded Avid clone.
Personally, I think it is one of the bettter options available right now - too bad the dealer wouldn’t even agree to make any customizations , for instance as small as replacing the default intercom with a stereo version ... maybe that’s how he keeps the price low.

[drseti]

- too bad the dealer wouldn’t even agree to make any customizations

One of my Maintenance customers got an LoA to let me replace his original prop with a DUC Swirl, so the dealer isn't completely inflexible.

[MrMorden]

My understanding is that Aerotrek , while originally based on Avid is a completely different plane , with different manufacturing process, materials etc ... you are definitely not just buying a rebranded Avid clone.

My Avid owner friend and I looked one over pretty closely at Oshkosh, we could not see any major differences. Some nicer fabric and upholstery and more refinement, but no obvious structural changes. That doesn't mean there aren't any of course, and I'm sure it takes advantage of all the refinements that have come though all the Avid/Kitfox models over the years.

To us it looked like a very professionally built Avid. And of course adding building and ASTM certification to the equation means it has to cost twice as much or more. No way around that. As for making changes, you could go to ELSA and have the advantages of a factory built airplane without the LoA hassles, if that accomplished your goals.

[drseti]

I can tell you from experience that the A220 flies just like a classic Avid, with the advantage of a Rotax 912 engine. Can't get much better for a basic, affordable SLSA. It's what many of us had in mind in 2004, when the rules came out.

[dstclair]

Regarding flying over gross: I think it *is* common. I know many, many pilots that talk about flying over gross with a shrug, or when I tell them I can't take that weight of people/gear/fuel will just say "just fly it over gross", and not in a joking way.

I think I might have been over gross a time or two when flying two people on long cross country flights, but not intentionally and not by much. I try to account for everything in the airplane, but there is always a possibility the "5lb of tools and spares" in my airplane is actually 7lb. I have told people on several occasions that they cannot take a bag weighing more than X pounds. Luckily my wife is a light packer. Also luckily, my airplane has a very generous useful load of 575lb. I imagine it's a lot harder or more frustrating to stay legal when your useful load is 480lb, you weigh 200lb, and you want to actually get some utility from your airplane.

Like most things where you shave the margins down, it's not a problem until it is.

TL recently issued a mandatory Notice that adds two safety cables to the chute installation. One of the reasons listed was "Early aircraft cable size was acceptable but below the current standard to protect the occupants during high speed deployments at high aircraft gross weights. " I asked SportAir about this last week and it was their belief that people were flying their aircraft over gross and they wanted to provide more safety margin. Interesting, that TL did not initially want to issue the notice since the current implementation was good and was within ASTM tolerances (I think ASTM allows 5% error). Sportair pressed the issue and got the notice.

Another tidbit I gleaned concerns LSA regs. Bydanjohnson reported that among other things, the FAA was considering increasing the MTOW and allowing 'single lever' controllable props. Sportair confirmed that these issues are in discussion and implied that the MTOW increase was agreed in principle. The actual MTOW is not agreed. The push is to go with EASA CS-VLA MTOW of 750KG. They figured its still 3-4 years off and had no idea if this could be applied to the existing fleet.

I wonder if Vashon is counting on the increase.

[FastEddieB]

Bydanjohnson reported that among other things, the FAA was considering increasing the MTOW and allowing 'single lever' controllable props.

If that came to pass I would be shopping for one tomorrow for my Sky Arrow.

A fixed pitch or ground-adjustable only prop is equivalent to driving a car with only one gear. Usable, but far from ideal.

[FastEddieB]

Bydanjohnson reported that among other things, the FAA was considering increasing the MTOW and allowing 'single lever' controllable props.

If that came to pass I would be shopping for one tomorrow for my Sky Arrow.

A fixed pitch or ground-adjustable only prop is equivalent to driving a car with only one gear. Usable, but far from ideal.

Remember, even as EXPERIMENTAL I cannot make modifications out of LSA limitations. Darn it!

[TimTaylor]

I would buy a C150 tomorrow,

[drseti]

I would buy a C150 tomorrow,

Even if they increased max gross wt, the C150 would not be Sport Pilot eligible, unless they also significantly increased the max stall speed.

And before someone here argues that the 150 stalls at less than 45 kts, remember that what you see on your airspeed indicator is indicated. The present rule calls for under 45 kts calibrated.

[Warmi]

Regarding flying over gross: I think it *is* common. I know many, many pilots that talk about flying over gross with a shrug, or when I tell them I can't take that weight of people/gear/fuel will just say "just fly it over gross", and not in a joking way.

I think I might have been over gross a time or two when flying two people on long cross country flights, but not intentionally and not by much. I try to account for everything in the airplane, but there is always a possibility the "5lb of tools and spares" in my airplane is actually 7lb. I have told people on several occasions that they cannot take a bag weighing more than X pounds. Luckily my wife is a light packer. Also luckily, my airplane has a very generous useful load of 575lb. I imagine it's a lot harder or more frustrating to stay legal when your useful load is 480lb, you weigh 200lb, and you want to actually get some utility from your airplane.

Like most things where you shave the margins down, it's not a problem until it is.

TL recently issued a mandatory Notice that adds two safety cables to the chute installation. One of the reasons listed was "Early aircraft cable size was acceptable but below the current standard to protect the occupants during high speed deployments at high aircraft gross weights. " I asked SportAir about this last week and it was their belief that people were flying their aircraft over gross and they wanted to provide more safety margin. Interesting, that TL did not initially want to issue the notice since the current implementation was good and was within ASTM tolerances (I think ASTM allows 5% error). Sportair pressed the issue and got the notice.
....

Well, if that’s the real reason ( as opposed to simple, time based deterioration ) how come Sting 4s are not included in that notice ?

[dstclair]

The S4s have a different cable system for the chute.

[TimTaylor]

I would buy a C150 tomorrow,

Even if they increased max gross wt, the C150 would not be Sport Pilot eligible, unless they also significantly increased the max stall speed.

And before someone here argues that the 150 stalks at less than 45 kts, remember that what you see on your airspeed indicator is indicated. The present rule calls for under 45 kts calibrated.

Yea, I forgot about the stall speed. Maybe if they raise the max gross weight, they will raise the stall speed a little also. If I was doing it, I would make sure any revised LSA specs included the C150, C152, and Cherokee 140 (2 place).